BISMARCK, North Dakota, February 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A strong majority of lawmakers in the North Dakota House of Representatives on Friday afternoon passed a law that would make it illegal to murder any human being from the moment of their conception.

The Defense of Human Life Act, HB 1450, recognizes every human being at any stage of development as a person under state law with a right to protection.

The overwhelming community and legislative support for HB 1450 proves that North Dakota could be the first state to recognize the value and dignity of every living human being, stated Representative Dan Ruby. The Defense of Human Life Act is just common sense. Of course every human being is a person, and every innocent person should receive legal protection. I am motivated to see women and children protected by HB 1450, and I look forward to its passage in the Senate in the near future.

While the bill prohibits chemical abortifiacients such as RU-486, it does not apply to emergency contraception, or other contraception administered before a clinically diagnosable pregnancy. The bill also exempts legitimate medical procedures that may lead to the death of children in the womb when a womans life is in danger. The bill also exempts pregnant women seeking abortions from criminal prosecution.

The bill, supported by ND Right to Life, ND Life League, ND Family Alliance, ND CWFA, and the ND Catholic Conference, passed 68-25 in Fridays vote.

Daniel Woodard, a legal consultant for North Dakota Right to Life and the North Dakota Life League, told LifeSiteNews.com that the bill would put the one remaining abortion clinic in the state out of business. This bill should shut down that clinic, said Woodard.

While the bill also bans the killing of frozen embryos produced by in-vitro fertilization, Woodard said, it would leave the implementation of new regulations to the medical community. In North Dakota, the legislature has confidence in its medical professional groups to regulate itself, he said.

While pro-lifers are optimistic about the bills survival in the Senate, Woodard said that supporters would be taking no chances and continue to lobby for its passage. A vote in the Senate is expected around March 10.

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple has not stated whether or not he plans to sign the bill.

Note too that states are taking the lead in not only rights, but responsibilities with all sorts of things: taxes, regs, spending, border control , the economy, the Constitution. That is a welcome sight in this Federal Mish Mosh we face from DC.

They are not going to “recognize the personhood” of the unborn from conception. The problem is that the law since the founding of the Nation has always been that the unborn do not become humans with rights until “quickening” which is generally when they start to move about. Most of the States nevertheless had laws prohibiting abortion from very soon after the Constitution was enacted. It was considered that even if the fetus was not a human, the State government still had the power to regulate abortion. On the other hand, there was nothing to prevent any particular State from allowing abortion.

Roe declared all those statutes prohibiting abortion unConstitutional in 1973. The most that the Supreme Court is going to do is overturn Roe, and go back to the pre-Roe law, which was that States could prohibit abortion, if they want, but they don’t have to. More likely, they will simply read Roe very narrowly, holding that the only thing Roe means is that you can’t put someone in jail for having an abortion.

I don’t think the Court would issue that kind of a ruling with the current Justices, but a switch of say two votes might make it happen.

Doesn't this provision sort of invalidate the main thrust of the bill?

Not everyone supports that particular aspect, but it is done for a reason. A doctor who sets up shop to make money from murdering babies is the real target here. The poor, scared desperate woman who is trying to make the "smart choice" by killing her child, is someone who could be sent to prison for 20 years under other forms of this type of law, but North Dakota is choosing not to be punitive toward her, and is trying to see her as a sort of victim as well. It's the medical establishment that is the easier, and more fruitful, target.

As I say, not everyone would agree with the strategy, but one can see why is would be chosen to garner easier political support.

24
posted on 02/12/2011 1:29:33 PM PST
by ClearCase_guy
(BO + MB = BOMB -- The One will make sure they get one.)

“North Dakota is choosing not to be punitive toward her, and is trying to see her as a sort of victim as well.”

If that is the case, you can expect the next woman who murders her child that is age anywhere from one day old to 18 years old to cite this aspect of the law in her defense and therefore not be convicted.

All she would have to say is that she was “a poor, scared desperate woman who is trying to make the “smart choice””

I think abortion is the most divisive political issue out there. It is the central point of all Democrat platforms, and it is the single biggest reason millions of people think Republicans are Nazis. We say they murder children, and they hate us for saying so.

Abortion is a big deal. Since 1973 (and before) it has been tearing this country apart.

I'd like to see progress toward making abortion totally illegal. I am 100% pro-life. I respectfully suggest that trying to put formerly pregnant women in jail is going to make this goal less attainable.

I say we keep our eye on the ball and focus on making the act of performing abortion illegal. Politics is the art of the possible. We want abortion to be illegal. Targeting the mother might be a poor strategy, and it may convince millions of voters that we Republicans really are monsters.

I say we keep our eye on the ball and focus on making the act of performing abortions illegal.

30
posted on 02/12/2011 2:00:42 PM PST
by ClearCase_guy
(BO + MB = BOMB -- The One will make sure they get one.)

Not exactly; there have been cases where pregnant women have been assaulted, lost their babies, and were then unable to prosecute for murder because it wasn’t a “child”. Libs hate these laws because they acknowledge that there is in fact “life”, but it may pass “constitutional muster” if it doesn’t infringe on “Our God-Given Right To Murder Children” /s.

I believe you are correct. I came to that same conclusion back in the second Reagan administration, when I read an extraordinarily "snotty" news article (not an editorial-this was published as straight news)in my local paper, regarding a change in the pro life tactics. Back then (mid 1980s) multiple states would pass very strict anti abortion laws, which governors would then (usually) sign, knowing the USSC would shoot them down. Then when Reagan was reelected-suddenly those bills stopped COLD. It had been an easy way to get the "prolife vote", but when it looked like there was a chance Reagan could get a few more judges on the USSC...well, suddenly those state legislatures and governors didn't seem too interested in pro life bills any more. Passing them was now risky, and as prochoice people also got worried at what might happen if Reagan got a few judges...Well, those governors and state legislators got worried about losing THEIR votes. The career and would be career politicians wanted to "balance" the voters, passing pro life bills they knew would get shot down, to get the pro life vote without worrying the pro choice vote, who trusted the USSC to keep those bills from being enacted. Anyhow, that article was all about the cessation of strict prolife amendments to state constitutions just "suddenly and unaccountably" vanishing, very sarcastic and sneering but in an understated, underhand way. (I wish I'd cut that article out and kept it; I am curious as to whose name was on the byline. It's stuck with me all these years.

Of course prochoice politicians do the same thing : They use the fear of abortion being declared illegal to get votes and donations.

The abortion issue is by no means the only important issue which is nothing but a game to politicians and bureaucrats, no matter how impassioned are voters about it. :-(

37
posted on 02/12/2011 3:54:48 PM PST
by kaylar
(It's MARTIAL law. Not marshal(l) or marital! This has been a spelling PSA. PS Secede not succeed)

I don’t think it’ll hold up in the short term, but this could be the start of something. After all, even the American Revolution didn’t happen overnight. This bill and its sponsors deserve to be applauded and supported.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.